I'm a Christian, but I think a country run according to the Bible would be a disaster. Which is fine, because that's not what the Bible is for. It provides moral guidance for the individual, and -- arguably and at any rate to a lesser extent -- the church. It does not provide instructions on how to run a government.

I also don't support the death penalty as a means to get revenge or even "justice," in a certain sense. The death penalty, properly applied, removes persistent threats. "Revenge" is not a Christian motive; it leads to a cycle of violence and seeks to supplant divine retribution. However, I don't think the New Testament is unequivocally opposed to stopping a threat, even through lethal force.

With some people I'm sure it doesn't add up. They've got their vengeful bloodlust thing going on, and that's pretty much impossible to square with the morality laid down in the New Testament.

But as I said in my first post, I don't think the NT is 100%, ironclad, unequivocally against killing somebody to stop them doing bad stuff. Actually it doesn't spend much time on the subject of force at all. Peter is told to put away his sword at the arrest of Jesus, for any one of a dozen possible reasons -- Jesus had work for Peter to do that didn't involve him getting killed by the far more numerous soldiers, or Jesus didn't want anybody to interfere because, after all, you can't have resurrection without the passion first. "Offer the other cheek" also doesn't hand down a clear instruction -- it has been interpreted as a command to leave retribution to civil authorities rather than trying to go all "eye for an eye" on your own -- and besides, it only offers instruction on how to react to somebody who injures you. What if someone stabs your kid? You supposed to offer him your other kid?

For my part, I sleep easy because I believe that the death penalty, properly applied, results in fewer people getting killed. God doesn't like it when people get killed and neither do I, so if rearranging the "who gets killed" list lowers the number, well, great.

"The death penalty was explicitly grounded in the fact that God made every individual human being in his own image, and thus an act of intentional murder is an assault upon human dignity and the very image of God."

To be clear, I support the death penalty, but only as a means of taking out the garbage, and not being founded in some religious text.

"unequivocally against killing somebody to stop them doing bad stuff."

Quote :

"I don't think the New Testament is unequivocally opposed to stopping a threat, even through lethal force."

Quote :

"I believe that the death penalty, properly applied, results in fewer people getting killed"

This is quite the stretch you're making ITT. The scenario under discussion isn't stopping a threat via lethal force or self defense. The application of the death penalty concerns people that are already in custody, and the options are them spending the rest of their life in prison or putting them to death.

Quote :

"But that's not an argument against the death penalty itself"

The fact that innocent people have been executed isn't an argument against the death penalty?

"The death penalty was explicitly grounded in the fact that God made every individual human being in his own image, and thus an act of intentional murder is an assault upon human dignity and the very image of God."

this logic doesn't work, the victims of the death penalty are still "in his own image" and were intentionally murdered themselves

"The application of the death penalty concerns people that are already in custody, and the options are them spending the rest of their life in prison or putting them to death."

Yeah, you guys always paint the choice as between execution on the one hand, and a convict safely kept away from society and behind bars, on the other. But that's not what happens. Sometimes people in prison escape; they are released, even when they are supposedly in there forever; they commit crimes against other inmates; they direct crimes outside of the prison walls from within; their incarceration inspires people outside of prison to commit crimes to free them.

Quote :

"The fact that innocent people have been executed isn't an argument against the death penalty?"

It's shitty reasoning. "Because X has been used badly, X is bad in and of itself." No. Doesn't fly. The death penalty, like any other form of punishment from traffic citation on up, can be used for good or for ill, and can inadvertently be applied to the innocent as well as the guilty. The fact that innocent people get parking tickets isn't an argument against parking tickets, either.

if the death penalty is moral when the person killed is guilty, then it would be moral if it was certain that the person is guilty. Even if this is impossible, it shows that with that logic the death penalty itself is not flawed (instead the process, or trial, is flawed).

If your response to questions about the death penalty is that we can't always know who is guilty, so it's bad, then you are implicitly agreeing that the concept of the death penalty itself is okay.

However even the guilty can be forgiven by God, so from a christian-moral perspective this isn't good enough.

"Yeah, you guys always paint the choice as between execution on the one hand, and a convict safely kept away from society and behind bars, on the other"

Yup, because that's what happens in the vast majority of cases. If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see your data on people serving life sentences who have escaped and killed again, as well as the number of people they've killed on the inside.

And holy fuck I can't believe you compared parking citations to the application of the death penalty.

I've noticed that so far that's the only response: a flat refusal to accept any comparison. We are talking about differences in scale here... Would it make you more comfortable if instead of parking tickets I referred to "the psychological scarring, violence, possible sexual abuse, and total absence of hope for future employment that come with a lengthy prison sentence?" Or is it still impossible to compare that to the death penalty?

Don't talk to me about "the vast majority of cases." I'm not in favor of the death penalty in "the vast majority of cases." I am in favor of it for the minority of cases with the risk factors I mentioned. Organized crime, for example; its leaders and members routinely continue directing and committing crimes in prison. I'll come up with some greater detail tomorrow when I have computer internet rather than just the phone.

"Sometimes people in prison escape; they are released, even when they are supposedly in there forever; they commit crimes against other inmates; they direct crimes outside of the prison walls from within; their incarceration inspires people outside of prison to commit crimes to free them."

If you're gonna go listing hypotheticals, you should also acknowledge some of those hypotheticals that don't support your argument, such as, "their execution inspires people outside of prison to commit crimes to martyr them". Don't pretend that's a problem unique to incarceration.

Quote :

"It's shitty reasoning. "Because X has been used badly, X is bad in and of itself.""

Yeah, but it's the same shitty reasoning you just finished demonstrating in your previous paragraph. Paraphrasing: "Incarceration can lead to early release or intraprison murder so incarceration is not a valid alternative to execution."

Also, the fact that the death penalty is completely irreversible should be a factor in your reasoning. An erroneous parking ticket can be refunded (with interest, if necessary). An erroneous incarceration can at least be partially remedied by release and compensating money awarded. There is no remedy for erroneous execution.

"Also, the fact that the death penalty is completely irreversible should be a factor in your reasoning. An erroneous parking ticket can be refunded (with interest, if necessary). An erroneous incarceration can at least be partially remedied by release and compensating money awarded. There is no remedy for erroneous execution."

"If you're gonna go listing hypotheticals, you should also acknowledge some of those hypotheticals that don't support your argument, such as, "their execution inspires people outside of prison to commit crimes to martyr them""

They aren't hypotheticals, they are things that happen -- most of them quite often.

Now, the thing about inspiring martyrs -- I probably should have just left it out, because for the most part that is hypothetical in the United States. It's very real elsewhere, though. I meant to refer specifically to the practice of taking hostages and demanding the release of prisoners in exchange. You can't demand the release of a corpse. Nor -- as has happened in plenty of countries -- can you attack a jail to liberate a corpse.

Quote :

"Yeah, but it's the same shitty reasoning you just finished demonstrating in your previous paragraph. Paraphrasing: "Incarceration can lead to early release or intraprison murder so incarceration is not a valid alternative to execution.""

This is some convoluted goddamn talk. I'm not trying to prohibit incarceration. I do not think that the incarceration is bad in and of itself because of its sometimes flawed application. I'm not using the same shitty reasoning because I'm saying a completely different thing:

You: "X has been used badly, so X itself is bad."Me: "Sometimes X is better than Y."

Quote :

" There is no remedy for erroneous execution."

Let's take a hypothetical guy, sentenced to life in prison at age 18 for a murder he didn't commit. He spends the next 60 years getting beat up, raped, witnessing horrific crimes, being deprived of any semblance of freedom. After 60 years new evidence comes up and he's released. He walks out of the prison gates and drops dead of a heart attack. Is that guy better off than someone who is wrongfully executed?

You'll cry out against my "hypothetical," again, and then I'll point out that in fact your "wrongful executions" are mostly hypothetical as well -- anti-death penalty advocates have a long list of wrongfully accused people released from death row (in other words, examples of the system working), but it gets a lot more sparse when we're talking about actual wrongful executions.

And then I would say that really this whole discussion about wrongful execution is misplaced. In the context of this thread, it's clear that Christians -- and everybody else -- are opposed to wrongful executions. And I've laid out reasons why a Christian might be able to reconcile his religious beliefs with support for the death penalty in certain circumstances.

But since this was never intended to be a religion discussion thread, and was always just another anti-death-penalty circle jerk, I'll play ball. I don't support a lot of the executions we perform and I don't like the current statutes regarding when the death penalty can and should be used. Seems like there's a lot of young men who get it for robbery related shootings, usually black guys, almost always poor, frequently with weaker evidence than I (or anyone else with the half a brain that should be required for jury duty) would send someone to the death chamber on.

I don't want to execute those guys. I want to execute the bin Ladens, the Escobars. The guys who are damned by overwhelming evidence in the first place, and who in the second control large, dangerous empires. Who could continue to command those empires form within prison, or whose subordinates might stop at nothing to free them.

I also want to execute the Mansons and Dahmers. Again, overwhelming evidence of heinous crimes. No shadow of a reasonable doubt. Guys for whom every indicator leads us to believe that, given the chance, they would do the same shit again.

And I want to execute pretty much anybody who commits a capital crime while in prison, because clearly prison didn't work.

It's hypocritical to be a Christian and support the death penalty, but humans are hypocrites, and especially Christians. It's hypocritical to be against the death penalty but support abortion. Or to be against abortion on the grounds it's taking an innocent life, but supprt the death penalty (which we know has taken and will take innocent lives).

The fact of the matter is that there's not a logical rule set that covers the common beliefs most people have regarding when it's okay for our government to kill someone in our name. It mostly boils down to how distant we feel from the situation, and how angry we get at the instant we hear about what someone has done.

Our military has certainly killed babies, both born and unborn, in our names, they've killed, maimed, and tortured innocent men, women, and children, but they are heroes because of the perceived greater good. But when cops incidentally kill innocent people in pursuit of their perceived greater good, then most people vilify and demonize them.

If someone could come up with a logical framework for what to do in all these situations, or what's morally right, that wouldn't require rebuilding society from scratch, I'd buy them a case of the finest beer.

But whether a certain type of killing is wrong is entirely a matter of social biases and how inconvenient it is to our lives; there's no logic to it.

We get mad at cops who screw up and kill an innocent because that could be us, but we don't care if a soldier does the same because it will never affect us. We support the death penalty because we hear about heinous people that we'd kill ourselves, or we're against the death penalty because someone we know could easily be wrongly convicted and lose any chance at life.

"It's hypocritical to be a Christian and support the death penalty, but humans are hypocrites, and especially Christians. It's hypocritical to be against the death penalty but support abortion. Or to be against abortion on the grounds it's taking an innocent life, but supprt the death penalty (which we know has taken and will take innocent lives)."

Why is it hypocritical?

I see no problem from a Christian standpoint supporting the death penalty. New Testament does not say the government cannot enforce its own laws or exact punishment against the guilty.

I see no conflict in supporting the death penalty, used in situations of competent adults who are proven to be guilty and being opposed to abortion, when used as the killing of the innocent and defenseless.

I choose not to support the death penalty because I cannot trust our government or our legal system to get it correct. If there were an ironclad method of determining guilt, then my opinion might would change. But that doesn't mean that you can't support the death penalty in theory and 1) be a Christian and 2) against abortion.

" New Testament does not say the government cannot enforce its own laws or exact punishment against the guilty."

I believe that we are talking about personal moral beliefs of people who identify as Christian, not their opinions or acceptance of laws or government. It may not be a conflict for a Christian to have a personal moral objection to the death penalty but accept that it's the law, but that's not what is being discussed.

There is a conflict between personally morally supporting the death penalty and considering one's self a christian.

It also absolutely does not make sense to personally morally support both the death penalty and abortion, because even the guilty are forgiven by God

[Edited on March 18, 2015 at 2:43 PM. Reason : aren't you an attorney? step it up.]

"There is a conflict between personally morally supporting the death penalty and considering one's self a christian."

Why? I have seen nothing that suggests that the death penalty is morally reprehensible from a Christian standpoint. The Bible, and Christian morality is not against punishment. The death penalty is recommended all throughout the Old Testament, and it is not opposed in the New Testament.

The Bible doesn't say to rejoice in the death penalty, but it doesn't prevent the punishment by death of those guilty of heinous crimes.

As far as abortion and death penalty -- God does not forgive the guilty who are unrepentant. I think you forget that God is a wrathful and vengeful God. There is no comparison between the killing of the innocent and the killing of the guilty.

"The death penalty is recommended all throughout the Old Testament, and it is not opposed in the New Testament."

Are you trying to cite the old testament as justification? are you missing the christian part of this?

Jesus is certainly opposed to the death penalty, he demonstrated clearly that no one has the moral authority to condemn another to death when he saved the woman from the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus spoke frequently on nonviolence, forgiveness, and loving neighbors and those who have hurt you

It's also not only from Jesus, even Paul and Peter talk against revenge or using violence to repay violence.

that really wasn't very good and made even less of an attempt an argument than some of the posts here. in fact, considering that it's the first result when you google "why christians should support the death penalty" I'm pretty sure what you actually did is googled "why christians should support the death penalty" to try to find a good argument and posted the first link.

[Edited on March 18, 2015 at 3:40 PM. Reason : lol, you googled that shit]

No, that's not what I mean. But they hold the Old Testament out as truth, but Christ absolves the need for following the strict tenants of the Old Testament. That doesn't meant that the Old Testament becomes irrelevant.

[Edited on March 18, 2015 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ^about half do. I personally, don't. But that doesn't mean it's hypocritical if you do.]

Because I don't have to. The Old Testament laws were God's method for granting entrance into Heaven, showing his people how to worship or distinguish themselves from the gentiles, or atone for their sins. With Christ, and his sacrifice, we no longer have to do those things anymore. Christ is the only way into Heaven, he absolves the need to wear long beards and hats on our heads and boxes on our foreheads. There are still many of the same trends and edicts for sinning repeated in the New Testament, but the reason you don't find the dietary restrictions, or things like that is they aren't necessary in a world where Christ is the method of obtaining eternal life, and nothing else.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you have to read both together. You cannot understand the history or background if you ignore or discount as irrelevant, the Old Testament. Nothing in the New Testament prohibits capital punishment, so the NT isn't a trump card on supporting capital punishment.

I have never said we are bound by capital punishment or that it's necessary, but that I don't see a conflict with Christianity. I understand the thought process of those who choose to support it.

"The death penalty is recommended all throughout the Old Testament, and it is not opposed in the New Testament."

and then ignore that Jesus establishes a new covenant and ignore that there are plenty of examples or teachings in the new testament that oppose capital punishment, revenge, or using violence to repay violence

"They aren't hypotheticals, they are things that happen -- most of them quite often.

Now, the thing about inspiring martyrs -- I probably should have just left it out, because for the most part that is hypothetical in the United States. It's very real elsewhere, though. I meant to refer specifically to the practice of taking hostages and demanding the release of prisoners in exchange. You can't demand the release of a corpse. Nor -- as has happened in plenty of countries -- can you attack a jail to liberate a corpse."

I think you misread what I posted. You DID leave out the part about martyrs; that was precisely my point! What you included was, "their incarceration inspires people outside of prison to commit crimes to free them." I countered by saying that problem isn't unique to incarceration, slightly modifying your quote, "their execution inspires people outside of prison to commit crimes to martyr them". It's disingenuous to pretend the former is unique to incarceration, because the latter can also happen.

As for my use of the word "hypothetical", I think you're reading that differently than I intended. I'm not trying to hide behind the word and pretend as if those things you mentioned do not exist--they obviously do. I mean "hypothetical" in the sense that, when the choice is made to incarcerate or execute, the possibility that either choice is misused is hypothetical--it's not guaranteed to happen.

Quote :

"This is some convoluted goddamn talk. I'm not trying to prohibit incarceration. I do not think that the incarceration is bad in and of itself because of its sometimes flawed application. I'm not using the same shitty reasoning because I'm saying a completely different thing:

You: "X has been used badly, so X itself is bad."Me: "Sometimes X is better than Y.""

Maybe I misunderstood you here. I was getting the impression that, for the set of people deserving the death penalty (in your opinion), incarceration was not an option for you--It has too many risks such as escape/early release from prison, intraprison crime,.... If that's the case, I stand by what I said: You are also saying (for this set of people): "Incarceration has been used badly, so incarceration itself is bad".

If, instead, you merely meant that execution should be left as an option (since incarceration can screw up), fair enough. I disagree with that, but that is different from me saying execution should not be an option since execution can screw up.

Quote :

"Let's take a hypothetical guy, sentenced to life in prison at age 18 for a murder he didn't commit. He spends the next 60 years getting beat up, raped, witnessing horrific crimes, being deprived of any semblance of freedom. After 60 years new evidence comes up and he's released. He walks out of the prison gates and drops dead of a heart attack. Is that guy better off than someone who is wrongfully executed?"

No, I don't think the guy is better off. But there's a difference:

Generally speaking, a wrongful incarceration can be corrected by releasing the falsely imprsioned. Sure, there's the potential for things to fuck up (as in your scenario) so that there ultimately is no remedy, but that's a bug, not a feature.

A wrongful execution can never be corrected. When things fuck up with execution, there's never a remedy--that's a feature, not a bug. That's a big fucking difference to me.

I refuse to condone a state sponsored form of punishment that, by its very nature, has no remedy when things fuck up.

"and then ignore that Jesus establishes a new covenant and ignore that there are plenty of examples or teachings in the new testament that oppose capital punishment, revenge, or using violence to repay violence"

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't agree with you that anything in the new testament opposes capital punishment.

"can't possibly be the only person who read leviticus to survive boring sermons as a kid]"

Revelations is more interesting and possibly the reason I'm a fan of post apocalyptic movies/tv/books.

The bible seems very obviously against capital punishment to me. The whole basis of Jesus' teaching is restraint, thoughtfulness, and moderation and not giving into carnal instincts. The death penalty is nearly the prototype for everything Christianity is against-- it's a barbaric, primal, human condemnation of another human being (cast the first stone, eye for an eye makes everyone blind, judge not lest Ye be judged, turn the other cheek, etc). It specifically says not to sin in anger, when you do get angry, and killing someone is a sin.

^^No, it wasn't capital punishment, that was vigilante justice. He didn't stop his own capital punishment, or those of the men hanging beside him.

And he never spoke out against government punishment including death.

Quote :

"killing someone is a sin."

Murder is a sin, simply taking someone's life is not. Is war a sin? Is protecting your family against an intruder a sin? The act of killing, in and of itself, is not a sin. I don't think anyone can argue that lethal injections are taken out in the heat of the moment.

"Forty percent of Catholics say they're against capital punishment, double the number of evangelical or fundamentalist Christians." != ""about half" of the world's Christians support[ing] the death penalty,"